Friday, February 29, 2008

I write this knowing full well I may have egg on my face. But keep in mind that I was one of the few pundits who did NOT predict a Clinton-Giuliani ticket. In fact, I picked John McCain as the GOP winner back on March 23, 2007 on this very blog. (Granted, I picked Edwards for the Democrats - but note two things: a) I was obviously too charitable towards their intelligence for picking the most likely to succeed candidate; and 2) I didn't pick Clinton like everyone else did). Hillary's career is about to be buried by a neophyte who has never won a competitive race for elective office in his life. How did that happen?

You must understand that Hillary Clinton, for all of the attempts to declare her the smartest woman in the world, is utterly lacking any self-respect. Why did she stay with a pathological sex addict even when he betrayed not only her trust but the trust of every voter in America? Because her lust for power exceeded her husband's own lust for women, and that's no small feat. She not only put her self-respect on hold, she aided and abetted Bill's philadnerings with vicious attacks upon an unseen 'vast right wing conspiracy.' And now she has demonstrated that the very arrogance and lust for power that pushed her to lie for her husband is a character trait that would be disastrous were she ever elected President.

I tried to tell people. Nobody would listen. I told friends and foes alike that Hillary would NOT win the nomination. They looked at her astounding poll numbers and figured she'd ride a yacht to the White House. None of them ever listened when I pointed out that Gary Hart had higher numbers in a larger field, that Howard Dean had a bigger lead late, that the Iowa electorate is hostile territory for front-runners, and her poll numbers are based ENTIRELY upon name recongition and nothing else. But you must remember that using the old little girl's mantra of 'life should be fair' and the feminist mantra of 'whatever it takes,' Hillary's split personality led her into an arena of arrogance particular to Democrats: entitlement. You see, because Hillary put up with so much abuse and betrayal, she was ENTITLED to the Presidency. Anyone who thinks she didn't believe that has not watched this campaign, the Clintonian version of the 'Keystone Kops.'

Fooling the idiots who live in New York State is no big deal. Jeez, for all of their dismissal of Southerners such as myself, they still have a large contingent of New Yorkers who think professional wrestling is real and that the disaster of September 11, 2001 ENTITLES (that word again) that state to host a Super Bowl in the near future. So fooling a bunch of New Yorkers who simply punch D on the ticket - particularly when she ran against the quintessential empty suit (Do you even know the name of her opponent in 2000? It was Rick Lazio) - was hardly a big deal. Fooling the nationwide populace, however, is a much bigger task, and clearly one that has not been able to master.

Why? And what went wrong?

I think the quote that says it best came from Tom DeFrank, a respected journalist, who noted that Hillary had told former chum George Stephanopolous, now of ABC News, that she would sew up the nomination on February 5, Super Tuesday. She clearly had no plan for what to do if her best-laid plans went awry. And I would add that THAT FACT ALONE disqualifies Hillary from even serious consideration as a President. If a prospective candidate doesn't have a back-up plan to alter course, why in the world should the voters think she has one when a crisis such as 9/11 happens? Or the Challenger explodes? Or the Oklahoma City bombing occurs?

Reasons Why Hillary Lost

1) Her poll numbers were entirely on name recognition.

2) She had the highest negatives of any candidate in the race. Funny how the media who points this out when it is a Republican never bothered to play this particular angle up for public consumption.

3) She failed to lower expectations in Iowa. Even the great Ronald Reagan lost Iowa, and in 1988, GHW Bush finished THIRD behind Bob Dole and Pat Robertson. This history should have told her that she was walking into a buzzsaw. But either Hillary or Mark Penn should have seen the pending disaster and told the media that they would 'probably lose' Iowa. If this had been done, the assessments made by the press would largely have been irrelevant. She could then have focused on New Hampshire and not had to cry in hopes of winning.

4) The crying episode. It is one thing to push out a tear as Ronald Reagan did while addressing the nation after the Challenger disaster. It is another to wallow in self-pity because you're not riding a boat to the White House but you have a first-class cabin on the Titanic. The Clintons - both of them - have never been able to figure out why Ronald Reagan was so popular and Clinton wasn't. Hey folks - it might be because Reagan said the same things in 1964 as he did in 1984 and didn't take a poll before he said them. Authenticity goes a long way. But the Clintonian arrogance of looking at every voter as stupid made authenticity less appealing for their own use. After all, who really wants to vote for a conniving, manipulative, and vindictive figure like Hillary Clinton? So authenticity was out.

5) '35 years of experience?' I would say that she has 33 of covering up spousal peccadilloes, but this lie reminded people of what Bill Clinton was all about - lying. I suspect Bill Clinton probably lied when he printed his name on his SAT. He lied about everything even when it served no purpose other than to inflate his ego. Consider the follwing liberal Democratic women who have more political experience than Ms. Clinton:

Barbara Boxer - 16 years in Senate, 10 years in House, and comes from a bigger state, California

Maria Cantwell - elected the same day as Hillary, she not only served 2 years in the House but she also spent 6 years in the state Congress and was a dot.com millionaire.

Dianne Feinstein - 16 years in the Senate, she also served for nearly a decade as the mayor of San Francisco. Translation: She has executive experience that Hillary does not.

Mary Landrieu - 12 years in the Senate. Oh, and if relationships count, her father was the mayor of New Orleans for a long time.

Blanche Lincoln - four years in the House and 8 in the Senate.

Barbara Mikulski - 10 years as a representative and 21 in the Senate.

Patty Murray - Senator for 16 years

Debbie Stabenow - she was elected to the Ingham County Board of Commissioners in 1974 and was the youngest person and first woman to chair the Board (1977-78). She was elected to the Michigan House of Representatives where she served for twelve years (1979-90) and rose in leadership, becoming the first woman to preside over the House. She served in the State Senate for four years (1991-94). Elected to Congress in 1996 representing Michigan’s Eighth Congressional District, she won election to the U.S. Senate four years later. (This adds up - amazing as it seems - to 34 years of experience).

So Hillary should have been in line behind AT LEAST eight other liberal Democratic women. But for some reason she moved to the front of the line. And that reason is another albatross on her noomination.

6) Bill Clinton - good riddance. Hillary seems to never have digested the message of the 2000 Presidential election. That message was, "This man's only true accomplishment is surviving impeachment that he forced on himself. We'll look elsewhere for a leader."

Despite all the glamorous tributes showered upon Bill, many Senators are angry that they had to put their collective necks on the line for him by voting him not guilty when they knew full well that he was. It probably cost Tom Daschle his Senate seat in 2004, and it no doubt cost Liebermann the Vice-Presidency in 2000. These folks gave to Clinton who only had pardons for convicted felons to give in return. Since neither Daschle nor Liebermann was in the slammer, he was of no use to them. No doubt they now realize that if they had removed him and Gore had run for President as the incumbent in 2000, he would have wiped the floor with Bush because he'd have been on the job for over a year showing his 'experience.'

Hillary Clinton is going to lose Texas. She is going to lose Vermont. Since both voters in Rhode Island are related to her, she will win that race. And Ohio? She'll win, but it won't matter. Bill has already declared she had to win both in order to be the nominee. You don't think Bill would lie, now, do you?